First, let
me add my support to [llivermore] and
[KennyB]: abolition of the slave trade
by the British government in 1807 and
its subsequent enforcement are things
for white Britons to be PROUD of,
things they should give themselves
credit for, rather than blaming
themselves for what went before, and
which not just "white men" were guilty
of.

This
particular anniversary, it seems, is
set to be used by Ms Bunting and
others as yet another opportunity to
demand more self-flagellation,
prostration, and concessions (e.g. yet
more immigration into his already
overcrowded homeland!) from the wicked
"white man".

Where
does this self-hatred come from, I
wonder? There is something very
medieval-Christian about it. Was Adam
not a "white man", who disobeyed God,
thus causing Him to curse all
humankind? See "An Atheist's and
Agnostic's (not yet definitive) Guide
to God":
http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Sunturn/Index.htm

Could it
be that Ms Bunting et al. are not so
much self-hating themselves, but adept
at exploiting the self-hatred - or
rather, the culturally ingrained guilt
- of their fellow white men and women,
in order to weaken and gain power over
them?

By
claiming for themselves the victories
over past evils (slavery, Nazism,
apartheid, etc.)* they cleverly and
deceitfully (although, not
consciously, I suspect) secure for
themselves the "moral high ground"
from which to conduct their own,
personal, Darwinian struggle for
survival and advantage in the
"socio-economic environment", that for
Homo sapiens has effectively replace
the natural environment.

* Anyone
opposing mass immigration and the
Left's vision of a
multi-racial/multicultural society
(i.e. the melting pot, in which racial
(and cultural?) differences will
eventually dissolve and disappear) is
damned and dismissed as someone who in
the past would have supported slavery,
Nazism, apartheid, etc.

I'll
leave the second point I want to make
to a later post.

2nd
Post

The
second point I wanted to make
relates to NATIONAL IDENTITY,
which is based on the need for a
sense of belonging and group
identity deeply rooted in human
nature that evolved over millions
of years - not to preserve and
serve the power structures of the
nation state, as it does now - but
to facilitate the Darwinian
struggle for survival and
advantage in "extended family
groups" in the "natural
environment".

With
the development of civilisation,
in just the past 3000 years or so,
the struggle for survival and
advantage moved from the natural
to a completely different,
ARTIFICIAL, "socio-economic
environment". Human nature (the
biological foundations of our
behaviour and emotions), needless
to say, has barely changed.

As
the socio-economic units of human
population got larger, leaders
struggled to gain and retain
control of members' loyalty, using
physical force, of course (as
befits our primitive animal
nature), but also cleverly
exploiting individual members'
fundamental need (material and
emotional) for a sense of
belonging and group identity.
Leaders were usually driven to
increase their domains without
limit, creating empires, but these
have always tended to break down
into smaller, more manageable
units, the NATION STATE being the
final, relatively stable, product
of this development.

In a
modern democracy such as ours, the
ruling class has grown and
developed into a much wider class
of "stake holders", which,
notwithstanding massive
inequalities in the size of the
stakes, embraces virtually
everyone, providing them, in
theory at least, with the chance
of increasing the size of their
own stake.

We
ALL have a stake in the NATION
STATE, and in maintaining the
power structures which constitute
it. But some (Gordon Brown, for
example) have a far bigger stake
than others.

The
notion of "British identity" is an
artificial, necessarily very
rubbery and superficial,
construction, which taps into and
exploits human nature, which
evolved to benefit us under
entirely different circumstances.
A sense of British identity was
created and is cultivated to
maintain and serve the power
structures of our nation state,
and the interests of, particularly
its biggest, stakeholders.

Our
need for a sense of belonging and
group identity is a fundamental
part of human nature. It is a need
that has been commandeered and
exploited by the demands of the
nation state, i.e. the primitive
animal drives and behaviour of
those (leaders) instrumental in
creating it.

Now,
at long last, WE (the ordinary,
honest, decent people, rather than
those who would lead, deceive and
exploit us) have the freedom and
the means (the technology) to take
back and determine, each for him
or her self, our OWN (in the
modern world, multi-faceted) sense
of identity.

At
the moment we ALL depend on the
power structures of the nation
state, so we cannot simply do away
with them. What we can do,
however, once the necessary
open-source software becomes
available on the Internet, is
SELF-ORGANIZE, and gradually
replace (perhaps not completely,
but largely) the power structures
of the state.

The
political Right wants to use the
power structures of the state to
advance (i.e. impose it on others)
their own (Christian) morality and
world view, along with their
vested interests in "property
rights" and free-market capitalism
for the exploitation of others (a
natural inclination of our animal
nature), while the political Left
want to use the power of the state
to advance their own, largely
misguided, vision of human
civilisation (in which they, of
course, belong to the
"progressive" ruling elite, e.g.
as a Guardian columnist).

I,
on the other hand, want to see the
power structures of the nation
state, in so far as they are
rooted in our primitive animal
nature (which they very largely
are), become redundant.

Although I've not read any of
them, I suppose I'm an ANARCHIST -
but only in the most positive,
humane and non-violent sense.

I am not
going to be told by Mr Brown, or
anyone else, what my identity is or
should be, or what OPTIONS I have to
select from.

I do NOT
have multiple identities, as some
suggest we do. What I have is an
impossible-to-define (in some
respects, deeply
mysterious), multi-faceted identity,
the different facets of which,
depending on circumstance and mood,
are blended and emphasized in a
confusing (even to myself), sometimes
contradictory, variety of ways, none
of which has much to do - not any more
- with Britain, or British
citizenship.

As far
as I am NOW concerned, British
citizenship simply provides necessary
official documentation (a passport)
and access to certain, valuable rights
and privileges. The same rights and
privileges, of course, which have
attracted so many immigrants to these
shores, and undermined the (largely
spurious, but powerful, nevertheless)
sense of British identity I once had.

The
nation state (in this instance,
Britain) is just an assemblage of
power structures (clothed in lies and
myths), which serve us ALL (i.e.
anyone with a British passport) to
some extent, but which serve some (not
mentioning any names, classes or
professions) far better than others.

Perhaps
I'm odd and unusual, but I tend to
identify MOST with those I share MOST
with, as I do with fellow, native
(ethnic), Englishmen and Europeans:
common (or closely related) ancestors
(hardly unimportant), history (going
back to the ancient Greeks),
prehistory, culture, religion (even if
lapsed or outgrown), not to mention
our ancestors' part in the scientific,
technological and industrial
revolutions that have formed the
modern world and on which we now all
depend (even if many of them ARE
arseholes, or worse!).

With
Britain's ethnic minorities (New
Britons, collectively) I share nothing
but our "common humanity". That's a
lot and its important (it means that I
try to show them the respect I owe to
all human beings), but it is no more
than I share with 6 billion plus other
human beings on our planet (that our
government, in its infinite wisdom and
authority, chooses to issue some with
a British passport means nothing to
me). UNLESS, that is, I know them as
INDIVIDUALS - which changes
everything. But I cannot possibly know
more than a relatively small number.
The vast majority must remain
strangers, which whom I share nothing,
except a passport: no ancestors, no
history no culture (except to the
extent that they may, or may not, have
adopted mine).

But, of
course, Mr Brown, and a lot of other
people (not least in the media) want
and need us ALL to believe the MYTH
and LIES of shared British identity.

[shlick],
I agree with you about capitalism,
i.e. the far greater efficiency of
"wage slaves" over actual slaves,
playing an essential role in the
abolition of slavery, but not with
what you add about it having "nothing
to do with high-minded humanitarian
ideals", which, I'm sure, also played
an important role.

And I
don't see why white Britons shouldn't
be proud of the high-minded
humanitarian ideals and efforts of
their forebears, while at the same
time regretting (perhaps even being
ashamed of) other forebears' less
noble behaviour.

5th
Post

Bix2bop], no, I "wasn't aware that the
term the White Man (capitalized)
originates with Kipling and connotes
more than skin color", but thanks for
pointing it out.

I put
"white man" in quotation marks because
it has so many, mainly negative,
connotations, while for me it is
synonymous with "ethnic European",
which is the ethnic group (its shared
history and culture) that I
personally, and quite strongly,
identify with. As a "white man" I
often feel as I imagine I would, as a
heterosexual male, in the company of
militant lesbian feminists. I have to
be on my guard against those who hate
me (i.e. what they associate me with).
But I have to be careful: the moment I
assert (or just confess) my identify
as a white (ethnic European) male, I'm
likely to be damned as a "racist" or
"male chauvinist". They want me to be
ashamed of it, or at the very least,
deny that it is of any importance. But
I cannot do that without being
dishonest, which despite living in
such dishonest times, I don't want to
be.

In
response to your first question, "Why
would you think that it's only for
white Britons, and not all Britons, to
feel proud of Britain's abolition of
the slave trade?" The answer is that
since anyone with a British passport,
irrespective of their origins, race,
culture, native tongue, history etc.
is now generally referred to as a
"Briton", I no longer consider myself
to be one. As I've explained in
previous posts, above, I do not
identify with
multi-racial/multicultural Britain,
but with those I have most in common
with, whereby shared ancestors (race),
history and culture are - for ME, at
least - not absolute or unconditional,
but nevertheless, of CENTRAL
importance.

The
government invites into our already
overpopulated country, with its mixed,
but nevertheless - ethnically,
culturally and historically - closely
related, native European population,
not just a few (no problem with that)
but MILLIONS of people of (noticeably)
very different origins, culture and
history (with their OWN
identities!), and tells us, "these
are now Britons too". They are people,
and I respect them as such, but
Britons? They are not even Europeans!
If I were to immigrate to Africa or
China, would I suddenly (or even after
several generations) become an African
or a Chinese? Hardly. I'm a European
because my ancestors (going back, not
decades, but millennia!) were
European.

I'm
questioning the relevance now, and for
the future, of a "British identity"
and of the nation state which is its
purpose to hold together. That's
dangerous, I know, and scary, because
it undermines the power structures of
the British state, on which we ALL
(non-UK residents excluded) depend,
and they ARE powerful indeed.

This is
why some will condemn and dismiss me
as a "racist". Because you don't have
to discuss issues with "racists". And
this is an issue, with truly
revolutionary implications, that we
have good reason to be fearful of.
Although, to my mind, that is all the
more reason to discuss it with as much
openness and honesty as possible. We
need to know what we are doing and
proceed very carefully when we start
to dismantle (at least partially) the
power structures of our nation state -
which, I'm pretty sure, is what must
happen, if we are to make REAL
progress towards creating a more just,
humane, and above all, sustainable
socio-economic order.

[jumeaux],
I found your post particularly
interesting and will respond to the
point you make in reference to me in
my next post.

6th Post

[jumeaux],
What you refer to as ONE of your
(multiplicity of) identities (a
sense of Britishness amongst
Americans), I would refer to as a
"facet" of your (single) identity.
It's two different ways of looking
at the same complicated phenomenon.
But to me, having multiple
identities seems schizophrenic.
SomeONE has to take responsibility
for ALL my different identities, and
that's ME.

[doctorbrydon],
While I agree that there is some
element of choice in respect to
identity, I think it is very
restricted. Being a native and ethnic
European is a central part of my
identity, because that's what I AM;
it's what my ancestors (certainly most
of them) were. I cannot choose to be
Chinese or African instead, even if
I'd been born there and had largely
adopted their culture and way of life.
What I can choose to identify with,
however, is what I find good in
European history and culture. I
certainly wouldn't choose to identify
with the Nazis, for example, but to
some extent I have to, because they
WERE, I'm sorry to say, Europeans, and
I have to accept and deal with that.

Many on
the political left, who
sometimes like
to call themselves "antifascists" or
"antiracists", choose to deny the
importance of that ethnic connection,
preferring to embrace (identify with)
other races (especially Africans, who
are perceived, I
presume, to be less tainted by
the evils of civilisation) in an
attempt to dissociate themselves
completely from Nazi crimes, rather
than facing up to the terrifying
possibility that there might be a bit
of "Nazi madness" lurking in
themselves, as I know there is in me.

There
are things I find good in African and
especially Chinese history and
culture, of course, which I would
certainly want to identify with if I
were Chinese or African; but I'm not,
so I don't. Which doesn't mean to say
that I cannot identify with INDIVIDUAL
non-Europeans. Certainly, I'm more
inclined to identify with Buddha (as a
man, not a deity) and his teachings
than I am with Jesus or any Christian
(European) theologians. Identity is a
very complicated and contradictory
business. It's of huge personal,
social and POLITICAL importance (or
SOON will be), but because you cannot
precisely define or grasp it (even for
yourself, let alone for someone else)
it's good (sometimes, vital) to remind
ourselves of our "common humanity" and
not take it (a particular facet of our
identity) TOO seriously,
notwithstanding that this is sometimes
a lot easier said than done.

And
there endeth today's sermon. I'm sorry
if that's how it comes across.

llivermore's
post: The
abolition of the slave trade is "a
painful reminder of British
imperial history"? I would think
of it as one of the proudest
legacies of that imperial history.
Britain was one of, if not the
first major civilisation, to
voluntarily outlaw slavery, even
at some considerable cost to
itself. If I recall correctly, we
even went to war in some cases to
stamp out the slave trade in other
countries that were not so
progressive. Where is the shame in
that?

KennyB's post:
well done llivermore.

however
I fear you will get no thanks on
here, populated as it is by
yellow-bellied hand-wringers.

far
easier for them to blame the UK
for all the ills of the world, and
forget the proud legacy of
Wilberforce and those who fought
slavery.

shlick's
post: reality
check?

It
was an emerging industrial
capitalism that got rid of
slavery. Nothing to do with
high-minded humanitarian
ideals. Capitalism and slavery
are completely incompatible
economic systems, as well as
human labour costs under
capitalism being far less than
under slavery. Labour is also
far more mobile and flexible
under capitalism.

The civil war in the US was
essentialy a conflict between
northern industrial capitalism
and southern slavery to
determine a United states of
economic capitalism.

All the British self-congratualating
back-slapping for abolishing
slavery because of
humainatrian considerations is
sentimental hogwash, and a
perversion of history. As said
above, it was a clash of
economic forces, which a
vibrantly emerging capitalism
won, hands down.

Ironically, the slave trade
generated the capital which
financed and fuelled the
industrial revolution, which
in turn, caused the
death-knell of the slave trade
itself.